To Cut or Not to Cut: The Ethics of Cutting Shipwrecks

The first discussion I have planned will be on the ethics of cutting large ships into smaller pieces in order to accommodate excavation, treatment or simply to get the boat into the museum. At the WOAM conference I noted a surprising number of papers on the conservation of ships which involved cutting the ship into pieces. Reasons for cutting the ships generally related to the large size. Size ranged from a 30m long Gallo-Roman barge, to a Viking long boat to a bronze-age log boats. Cutting allowed for ease of removal from the site or allowed the wood to fit into the freeze-dryer or through museum corridors. Other treatments involved removing the original corroded iron nails and cutting away sulphite contaminated wood from around the nail holes to prevent the formation of sulphuric acid. It seemed sad to me that a bronze-age log boat carved out of a single log, that had survived thousands of years intact and that had been excavated intact was cut into sections as soon as it came into the hands of conservators. Large ships such as the Vasa, the Mary Rose and the Bremen Cog were recovered intact and not cut into sections to facilitate treatment or handling so it is not a necessity. Arguments run that it was too difficult to remove intact due to fast moving currents or an isolated or difficult excavation location, there was a lack of time, a lack of tanks or facilities large enough to treat the ship intact, that cutting the ship into sections reduced the time to treat, the deadline for exhibition was extremely short or that the boat could not turn the corner into the museum gallery or that the museum audience was happy regardless of whether the ship was cut or not. In the end, most of these decisions really come down to saving money. I know that one administrator attending the conference was eagerly asking questions about how much time and money cutting the ships into sections saved the institutions. Now money is always a consideration in conservation projects but at what point does allowing cost to be the driving force compromise a treatment to the point it crosses the line between expedient and unethical? Does it really matter since most shipwrecks are only partially intact with parts missing whether it is cut into further sections? Or do conservators compromise because they have little power within the decision-making hierarchy? I will state for the record that I have not dealt with the reality of a shipwreck so that allows me to remain a bit of a purist with regard to treatments. I would encourage all those who have treated shipwrecks to contribute to this discussion and see if there is a line drawn in the sand that we won’t cross.Tara Grant Coordinator WOAM